Review of Scarface

Scarface (1932)
not flawless, but still great
12 February 2003
I just watched "Scarface" for the 3rd or 4th time, and was surprised to find out that I no longer find it utterly perfect. Vince Barnett's vaudevillian comic bits are too long, and the constant underscoring of the film's anti-violence "message" is awkward. But I still think the film has a lot of great things in it, and I would definitely recommend it. As everyone else mentioned, Paul Muni is excellent as dopey gangster Tony Camonte, and this time I was knocked out by Karen Morley's performance as a no-nonsense moll; I hope I can find some other films of hers. I'm not sure the movie works as the anti-violence film it claims to be: Although Tony Camonte has a lot of faults, the non-gangster characters are mostly undeveloped and dull, if not downright problematic, like the police inspector who apparently likes to beat up arrestees. Edwin Maxwell's tough-talking Chief of Detectives has the right idea about the "lice" who shoot innocent bystanders during their crime sprees, but his character is a bit too one-note to compete with Paul Muni and George Raft. In fact, I think George Raft's character is subtly made into the hero of the film, despite all the illegal things he does. Interestingly, the film is probably just as violent as many modern pictures--there are an awful lot of gunshot victims--but because it's in black and white, and each killing goes by quickly, audiences of today might find it rather tame. But Hawks makes excellent use of sound to try and convey the horror of some of the crimes: a woman screams chillingly, a dog barks in the distance. Did this film help rouse the public against Prohibition-era gangsters, or did it just continue the public's romance with them?
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed